Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov 24;12(3):8646.
doi: 10.4081/or.2020.8646.

Compressive osseointegration for endoprosthetic reconstruction

Affiliations

Compressive osseointegration for endoprosthetic reconstruction

Lindsay Parlee et al. Orthop Rev (Pavia). .

Abstract

This review summarizes the biomechanical concepts, clinical outcomes and limitations of compressive osseointegration fixation for endoprosthetic reconstruction. Compressive osseointe - gration establishes stable fixation and integration through a novel mechanism; a Belleville washer system within the spindle applies 400-800 PSI force at the boneimplant interface. Compressive osseointegration can be used whenever standard endoprosthetic reconstruction is indicated. However, its mode of fixation allows for a shorter spindle that is less limited by the length of remaining cortical bone. Most often compressive osseointegration is used in the distal femur, proximal femur, proximal tibia, and humerus but these devices have been customized for use in less traditional locations. Aseptic mechanical failure occurs earlier than with standard endoprosthetic reconstruction, most often within the first two years. Compressive osseointegration has repeatedly been proven to be non-inferior to standard endoprosthetic reconstruction in terms of aseptic mechanical failure. No demographic, device specific, oncologic variables have been found to be associated with increased risk of aseptic mechanical failure. While multiple radiographic parameters are used to assess for aseptic mechanical failure, no suitable method of evaluation exists. The underlying pathology associated with aseptic mechanical failure demonstrates avascular bone necrosis. This is in comparison to the bone hypertrophy and ingrowth at the boneprosthetic interface that seals the endosteal canal, preventing aseptic loosening.

Keywords: Biomet Compress; Compressive osseointegration; bone loss; endoprosthetic reconstruction; limb salvage surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Compress® components with distal femoral adaptor. Image used with permission of Zimmer-Biomet.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Antirotation pin site selection.

References

    1. Kagan R, Adams J, Schulman C, et al. What factors are associated with failure of compressive osseointegration fixation? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017;475:698-704. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4764-9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bini SA, Johnston JO, Martin DL. Compliant prestress fixation in tumor prostheses: interface retrieval data. Orthopedics 2000;23:707-11; discussion 11-2. - PubMed
    1. Frost HM. Wolff's law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod 1994;64:175-88. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064Ã0175: WLABSA>2.0.CO;2. - PubMed
    1. Kramer MJ, Tanner BJ, Horvai AE, O'Donnell RJ. Compressive osseointegration promotes viable bone at the endoprosthetic interface: retrieval study of Compress implants. Int Orthop 2008;32:567-71. doi: 10.1007/s00264-007-0392-z. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Calvert GT, Cummings JE, Bowles AJ, et al. A dual-center review of compressive osseointegration for fixation of massive endoprosthetics: 2- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:822-9. doi: 10.1007/s11 999-013-2885-y. - PMC - PubMed